I'm not convinced the message was bulked for a reason other than DMARC policy.
Standing outside the black box, I can't necessarily tell what's going on inside. But this happens a few times a month, each time with a different subscriber on DMARC-Discuss, and it is always somebody who implemented a DMARC policy that I would consider unwise. In this case, the "why was this put in spam" message was the "BE CAREFUL! WE CAN'T CONFIRM THAT THIS IS REALLY FROM WHO IT CLAIMS TO BE FROM!" one, which is certainly suggestive to me of some combination of either auth failure or DMARC policy intersection. So if the INTENT is for Gmail to not ding those messages for a DMARC policy-related reason, then perhaps somebody might want to look closer, because it smells like a bug. Sure, I could be totally wrong. But I might not be. Cheers, Al Iverson On Fri, Apr 5, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Elizabeth Zwicky <[email protected]> wrote: > > Two (and a half) separate issues. > > Al is correct; the sending domain would be wiser not to put p=reject for this > domain. > > This is independent of the fact that gmail 1) decided not to apply DMARC to > it because they are nice to mailing lists and 2) decided to put it into the > spam folder for some non-DMARC reason. > > Elizabeth > > On Apr 5, 2013, at 7:50 AM, Christine Borgia wrote: > >> Olga said that dis=none (disposition=none) -- means that Gmail applied >> "none" policy instead of "reject". A "none" policy wouldn't cause mail to be >> spam foldered, would it? >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: [email protected] >> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Al Iverson >> Sent: Friday, April 05, 2013 10:39 AM >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [dmarc-discuss] Gmail Authentication-Results header >> >> Apologies if I'm beating this to death, but here's another example of a >> domain with active users participating in mailing lists, yet they have a >> reject policy in place. This mail is going to my spam folder at Gmail as a >> result: dmarc=fail (p=REJECT dis=none) d=junc.eu >> >> Might be wiser to not put p=reject for this domain. >> >> Regards, >> Al Iverson >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmarc-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss >> >> NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well >> terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html) > -- Al Iverson | Chicago, IL | (312) 725-0130 Twitter: @aliverson / www.spamresource.com _______________________________________________ dmarc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://www.dmarc.org/mailman/listinfo/dmarc-discuss NOTE: Participating in this list means you agree to the DMARC Note Well terms (http://www.dmarc.org/note_well.html)
